Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ALLEN COLVIN, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to allow him to present evidence that a codefendant wrote a letter admitting that he committed the crimes charged in the indictment. We reject that contention. It is well settled that, “[b]efore statements of a nontestifying third party are admissible as a declaration against penal interest, the proponent must satisfy the court that four prerequisites are met [, including that] ․ the declarant must be aware at the time of its making that the statement was contrary to his penal interest” (People v. Brensic, 70 N.Y.2d 9, 15, mot to amend remittitur granted 70 N.Y.2d 722; see People v. Shabazz, 22 NY3d 896, 898). Here, defendant failed to establish that the author of the letter wrote it before pleading guilty, and defendant thus failed to establish that the admission contained in the letter was against the author's penal interest when he wrote it (see generally People v. Ortiz, 81 AD3d 513, 514, lv denied 16 NY3d 898).
With respect to his contentions regarding the Huntley hearing, we note that defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court “unduly limited his cross-examination of a police officer concerning ․ statements” that defendant made to that officer (People v. Rookey, 292 A.D.2d 783, 783, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 701). In any event, that contention is without merit. “It is well settled that ‘[a]n accused's right to cross-examine witnesses ․ is not absolute’ ․ [and that t]he trial court has discretion to determine the scope of the cross-examination of a witness” (People v. Corby, 6 NY3d 231, 234, quoting People v. Williams, 81 N.Y.2d 303, 313). Here, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of defendant's cross-examination of the officer at issue (see People v. Baker, 294 A.D.2d 888, 889, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 708; People v. Herner, 212 A.D.2d 1042, 1045, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 974).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 09–01624
Decided: December 27, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)